Tuesday, December 04, 2018

Sarah Hoyt has yet to come to terms with the fact that it is her "born American in Portugal" civic nationalism that has led the United States to the brink of civil war:

But is it better if the rough music plays and civil war breaks out?

Civil war is not impossible. Despite the fact that we’re emulsified, red and blue living side by side (but not in harmony), civil war is not impossible. It’s just not the civil war we’ve read about in history books, the stories of the grey and the blue and neat armies on the field.

Sure, sure, brothers fought on opposing sides and son against father. But it was still largely territorial. Terrain gained and lost.

If civil war comes, it will be a war of insurrection. Of many groups against many. Of balkanization. Of neighbor turning on neighbor. Of houses burning and corpses hanging from neighborhood trees. Over and over and over again, and vendettas tossed in.

We’ve seen this. Most such wars go on forever. They become clan wars and wars of vengeance. After a century or so you fight because of what they did to your side in '79. Or whenever.

Or we could get lucky. Read “lucky.” One side could emerge victorious. A faction could emerge the strongest in a few years and pacify the country. By then it will take fire and blood and an iron boot. We’ll have to be unreally lucky to reform again under the old Constitution after that. More likely we’ll become like the other countries of the world, even the nominal republics: power and the old families, and the “right blood.”

Is that what you want?

It is not what I want.

But neither do I want the silent ignominy of tolerating fraud, of slowly sliding into a socialist morass because we dared not speak.

What is the answer?

I don’t have one.

The answer is not what about what Fake Americans want. It's not even about what genuine Americans want. It's about what they wanted and what they permitted over the last 70 years. At this point, due to the mass movement of peoples, civil war for control of the territory of the United States is not only not impossible, it is all but inevitable. There are three choices: subjugation, secession, and civil war. In the most likely scenario, we will see elements of all three, beginning with subjugation of the genuine Christian American nation, followed by secession, then what passes for civil war.

And the reason it will happen is because far too many people like Sarah Hoyt were permitted to not only become legal citizens, but were given a voice in government. Now the Fake Americans are more or less ruling over the people they invaded, and many people who came here because they wanted to live in an American society ruled by Americans don't like the inevitable consequences of their own collective actions.

Sarah is not a bad person. And one cannot reasonably fault people acting at the micro level for the macrosocietal consequences. But good people with good intentions have succeeded in accomplishing many very bad, very destructive things since the dawn of recorded human history. I don't blame her, or people like her, for invading America, I blame those who permitted and encouraged the invasion. But I do certainly fault them for refusing to admit that they were always part of the problem, even now.

Of course the United States "will become like the other countries of the world." How could it possibly fail to do so, now that it is mostly inhabited by people from those other countries?

180 Comments:

Becoming like other countries of the world would be a huge step up. The claim of American exceptionalism was an insidious lie designed to promote the idea that we could magically get away with doing the suicidally stupid things that have consistently wrecked nations.

About 30 % or so of the colonist fought and defeated the British to establish the USA. Another equal amount were royalists and another equal helping set on the fence.Can we, the Christian and mostly white, nationalists, do it again? There must be, surely, 30 or 40 % there to be patriots, again, and willing to spill blood for this country. If not, then we will deserve whatever the heck fate serves forth.

Foreigners were welcome in ancient Israel to the extent that they recognized the laws of the land and served the God is Israel. Those are the key factors. Our downfall began when we let Talmudic Judaism into the country, and to a lesser extent Catholicism. Never mind the more recent additions.

> In the most likely scenario, we will see elements of all three, beginning with subjugation of the genuine Christian American nation, followed by secession, then what passes for civil war.

It's the attempt at subjugation, mostly likely by attempting to disarm the population, that will lead to secession. It's already apparent that California has no real intention of leaving, which was the only real hope for a peaceful resolution. So yes, it's going to come to war.

> It would only take 5% of the population to make the country un-governable, if the rest of the population is passive.

We already have that, but it's on the other side. What do you call sanctuary cities, sanctuary states, and the current massive voter fraud if not an insurrection against the laws of the federal government? And it's way more than 5% in those areas.

No, Sarah is NOT a good person. There are sins of omission. She did not come to America to fight tooth and nail to shrink government back to JFK, much less Hoover or pre-Wilson. She has not to my knowledge been fighting the 20 Trillion debt which is going to ignite the insurrection. Does she even own a gun? Her nice nievete let the blue cancer metasticize and grow, instead of fighting constantly for liberty.

The America as diverse continuum is the problem, so Sarah came here for the middle, but it is shifting ever leftward because more people come here for the socialism parasite where the host still has some accumulated capital (or at least reserve currency status). And lots of neat 2GW warfare toys.

In Seattle this weekend the 3%ers were met by AntiFa brandishing assault rifles.

The great sin was not preserving the small, Constitutional government. Every tiny ratchet was justified and allowed. But now we can't coexist. And the problem is the Blue/Left doesn't want to leave the right alone. They want them deplatformed, their guns confiscated, forced reeducation on diversity, or just anti-white, anti-male hatred. But mostly anti-Christ.

If asked if they would be willing to be slaves to preserve peace and coexist, they would say no, but they are willing to become slaves one step at a time even by simply conceding small victories to their new masters - see the bump stock ban.

What hasn't happened yet is a full, direct attack and blasphemy of Jesus Christ and Christians, however that will be the sign that Christians need to get away from the blue areas - not unlike Jesus warned about what happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD. You won't be able to stay in Sodom, and God doesn't withhold judgment forever.

The sad/pathetic/infuriating thing is that the CivNats will never ever ever see that it was their passivity, refusal to address the real issues and attempts to be nice that made CW2, Fratricidal Boogaloo inevitable

"The destruction of the ‘American Way’ accelerated under my watch – and yours, if you’re anywhere my age – so let’s fess up – we were part of the problem. How so? We let a bunch of ‘developmentally arrested’ adolescent know nothings take over the entire culture and country – every institution you can name is run by so-called liberals (fascists is a better word). It took them over 100 years, but let’s face it – they are in charge and they are not bashful about telling us that they are." - that is my standard retort when discussing the state of America - usually with Conservatives.As Vox stated, they refuse to take responsibility for the fact that the real culprits are not the Left - it's the enablers.When your house is infested with termites, don't blame the danged bugs!

Snidely Whiplash wrote:The sad/pathetic/infuriating thing is that the CivNats will never ever ever see that it was their passivity, refusal to address the real issues and attempts to be nice that made CW2, Fratricidal Boogaloo inevitable

@11 > It would only take 5% of the population to make the country un-governable, if the rest of the population is passive.

We already have that, but it's on the other side. What do you call sanctuary cities, sanctuary states, and the current massive voter fraud if not an insurrection against the laws of the federal government? And it's way more than 5% in those areas.

Yes, the effectiveness of this App has been fully demonstrated by the left, in an environment where the Republicans will do nothing to enforce the laws. It will be tougher if the Democrats are in charge...

So she'll get angry. Really angry. Really, really, angry. And then what? Especially now that it is to the point of secession and civil war.

As Churchill said:If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Is Sarah more likely to give away the Sudatenland (All I want is peace and we can avoid a civil war! They seem like nice people!) or organize something like a Yellow Vest March? I don't know. I only know that we needed this anger over 10 years ago - and action. A few formed the Tea Party but they weren't the angry deplorable so were mostly coopted.

Many people have had the experience of sharing a house with other people. Sharing the same country is very similar. Much of the time, people have their own bedroom and maybe a private bath, but have free access to what are considered common spaces...the kitchen, living room, laundry. Outside, the yard space is normally common for all the tenants and parking is unassigned, pretty much up for grabs.

Under the best of arrangements, the housemates come and go as they need to, decorate their own bedroom spaces, and maybe add their own touches to the common spaces. The heat and air thermostat is usually set by the landlord, since they pay the bill. If you feel too hot or cold, maybe you need to change your wardrobe. Everyone has their own food, which is according to their own preferences, and pilferage is frowned upon.

This sort of arrangement allows for the greatest practical freedom and latitude for the tenants and pretty much describes much of American history. Everyone had their own private space and generally minded their own business.

In recent history, one of the tenants has demanded and insisted that all the other tenants live and think and believe as one. Some of the other tenants have either agreed to the idea or at least play along with the "new rules", which did not replace the "old rules", because there were no rules previously. The remaining tenants do not agree with the "new rules" and simply want to continue with freedom and tolerance and simply overlooking the different preferences of the other tenants. Of course, that is unacceptable and anti-social and disruptive and divisive. That is where we are today. Either somebody needs to move to another house, or submit to the "new rules", or the idea of the "new rules" needs to be abandoned, or the house needs to be divided into separate apartments.

There is a false choice being created in certain people's minds. The choice they present is surrender/submit or secession/civil war.

By my own understanding, secession and partition may be the alternative to civil war. It may be possible to avoid bloodshed by an orderly divorce rather than trying to destroy one another in domestic violence. Women should be able to understand this. Divorce is always better than murdering your spouse, even when there might be a lot of wealth involved. Of course, there is always "a lot" of wealth involved, there is everything the family had built or accumulated over the years, however much that is.

Divorce may not always be the best way to split up with someone, but it is normally the more humane solution for everyone involved. There are no one-sided civil wars. No matter which side seems to win, they both lose in a big way. What if no side wins? That does not mean the civil war continues forever. They could fight to exhaustion and still end up with a battlefield stalemate...and thus the partition, they could have had on day-one of the split.

This question probably covers a very small number of people, but I'm curious nonetheless. How would people like me and my brother be regarded in terms of national identity? Born in the U.S. to American parents, raised from a very young age in another country, and then returned to the U.S. as adults. We've been called "third culture kids," and that's probably accurate. Legally, obviously, we're born Americans in the literal sense; but are we "born Americans" in the true spirit of the term?

and the opportunists... who think they won't suffer when their own intestines hit the fan

Stupid Bill Penzey of Penzey's Spices is still up to his idiotic tricks but even a leftist journalist at The New Yorker casts a skeptical eye to Penzey's 2016 Trumprage (which is just another (((Bernays))) "public relations" (propaganda) trick. )

"Penzey is a savvy salesman who’s figured out how to capitalize on the political outrage of the Trump era and social media’s way of amplifying it—which might seem cynical if his political outrage weren’t so obviously real. "

We have to get rid of this old failed guard anyway. When you realize that you put faith in "conservatives" to say, protect your property rights and rights to have a gun, and realize they can't even protect children from perverts who want "initiate" them into the world of sex changes and pedophilia, you realize you cast your lot with the losing team.

@35: It is an open in question in my mind that if the American people knew in early 1861 that 600,000 people were going to die in a nasty war over the union that they just would not fight, that they would agree to partition the country as peaceably as possible.

It wouldn't even take 5%, it could be as few as 100 individuals, if they worked together, and had a plan.

The left is heavily reliant on certain individuals and charitable foundations for the vast majority of their funding, and the number of people involved is very small, probably less than 500.

The organized left has to know, at some level, that they continue exist at the forbearance of the right, and that all that is lacking is will. This is why, I think, that we will never see mass firearm round-ups, nor any other large, totally in-your-face usurpations of civil order.

Firearm confiscations have been going for a long while now, but in ones and twos. The left creates ever more laws for people to fall afoul of, and presto, felony conviction = loss of firearms. After that CA sends a team of LEOs to your door to take your guns, and poof, gone forever. Or, in Maryland, someone anonymously files a Red Flag report, and the cops come to collect your guns and kill you in your own home when you resist.

By my own understanding, secession and partition may be the alternative to civil war. It may be possible to avoid bloodshed by an orderly divorce rather than trying to destroy one another in domestic violence.Yeah, how'd that work out last time?

- Woodrow Wilson was not American born in Portugal or Mexico, he put the Bank of England sovereign over the coin, and joined WWI.- Carnegie/Rockefeller and other "robber barons" foundations destroyed the imagination of the US population through forced schooling.US was subverted from within. Immigration is just the final nail on the coffin.Portugal today is one of the most cucked nation on earth, the idea that we are ruling anything is hyperbolic. If "Portugal" is changed by another tribe, it might ring truer...

Stickwick Stapers wrote:Born in the U.S. to American parents, raised from a very young age in another country, and then returned to the U.S. as adults. We've been called "third culture kids," and that's probably accurate.

If you think you are American, you might be right. Sarah Hoyt is an example of being wrong.

If you think you are not American, you are surely right. See every hyphen-American for examples of this.

Longtime Lurker wrote:@35: It is an open in question in my mind that if the American people knew in early 1861 that 600,000 people were going to die in a nasty war over the union that they just would not fight, that they would agree to partition the country as peaceably as possible.

People die anyway, whether in civil war combat or old age, but maybe the choice could be every bit as real.

I think about the Union soldiers who quit the war and whole regiments of volunteers that returned to their home states after the Proclamation Emancipation was announced. This changed the purpose of the Union war effort from preserving the Union to freeing the black slaves. Some white Union soldiers at the time said they were willing to fight and die to keep the Union intact but not willing to fight to free the Negro slaves.

How many white Union army soldiers would have fought a terrible war to free the Negro slaves if they had any idea what those freed slaves would move by the millions to Northern cities over the years and transform those beautiful white cities into Third World black ghettos?

How many of the white Union troops would have been willing to fight the same war so that their great granddaughters could bear mulatto children with the descendants of those same black slaves?

I always thought the purpose of the civil war was Northern business leaders wanted to break Southern plantation owners so they could get control. Slavery was just a dog whistle to get the proles to spearhead the call for war.

The country is already partitioned across multiple lines already. One major lines is between rural and urban. The urbanites have the "culture", paper pushing jobs and a lot of free time. We country folk have the guns and the food.

Someone who is born in the U.S. to Americans, with heritage going all the way back to before the Revolution is clearly, legally, American by any reasonable definition whether he regards himself as such or not.

Though I obviously have selfish motives for asking my question, I'm interested in the broader perspective of how foreign-raised people will be regarded when mass repatriations start happening around the world. Years ago, someone, possibly Thomas Sowell, wrote about Japanese people born and raised in Brazil returning to Japan and facing scorn and discrimination. Although ethnically they were 100% Japanese, they were culturally something quite different, and they didn't fit in. So, where are they supposed to go? They're not Brazilian, but native Japanese didn't seem to consider them Japanese either.

I guess it comes down to Vox's answer. People will return to their nations regardless of cultural differences, and face whatever scorn they might face if they don't blend in.

[...] How many of the white Union troops would have been willing to fight the same war so that their great granddaughters could bear mulatto children with the descendants of those same black slaves?

It's neither here nor there at this point, but we tried to tell ya'll. Over and over and over again, we tried.

We even tried explaining to you that you were being duped; that slavery was on it's way out, having maybe 10, 15 years left; that the United States had enough money in it's coffers to buy every slave in the South -- and we would have sold them to you! Why? Because slavery was on it's way out and we didn't want roving bands of free-range groids here.

I'm not so sure about a civil war, but I definitely see civil unrest in the future. The Left is already engaged in small-scale warfare and large-scale intimidation efforts.

I'm waiting for someone on the Right to try hunting Antifa over bait...arrange for a conservative speaker to do something near, but not on, a college campus infested with Leftists. Wait for the attempted violence. Then deliver the Great Big Surprise of several dozen trained, armed men delivering deadly force.

Unfortunately true. But I also think the hand of God was against them. They could have started sending the slaves back to Africa on their own, after all.

> Lesson learned.

Yes. There will be no gentlemen's war this time, and it will be to the death. I expect radioactive ruins where many major cities are now located. I'd love to avoid it, but I don't see any way to do so now. Maybe if the debt collapse of the federal government is sped up enough, but that's about it.

Not just wrong, but a potential traitor. If he doesn't think he's Japanese, his fellow Japs should take that seriously. Thinking he's not Japanese doesn't make him American, but to them, it makes him Other.

Identifying as American doesn't make you American, but identifying as Other makes you functionally Other. Identifying as American is necessary, but not sufficient. You need the right bloodline, and undivided loyalty.

If you think you're not American, or that you're Something-American, we can't trust you, even if you have the right ancestry.

As Vox said, if you fit in, and if your loyalty is to our nation, that may be as far as we need to look.

It's already apparent that California has no real intention of leaving, which was the only real hope for a peaceful resolution.

Right. They want to rule the rest of the country, not secede from it. That's why leftists are bitching about non-proportional representation in the Senate and Electoral College. If they could change those two, the blue states could rule with ease.

To go to war over that, they'd have to draft armies. Most of the men they'd want to draft are in red areas, which probably wouldn't go so well. They could draw on their millions of illegals, but they still wouldn't stand a chance against the feds and red states. So for now I'd say the blue state governments are more likely to try to win in 2020 with massive voter fraud and intimidation, so they can change the rules that way. In the meantime, they'll do whatever they can to import more future fighters. If they fail in 2020, the pressure to act will increase, with more Antifa-style violence in their own backyards.

Of course the United States "will become like the other countries of the world."

When you stop and think about it, it's kind of ridiculous to believe otherwise. But that's what we were taught in school, that the Founders cracked the code and set up a system like no other before, that would flourish for enough centuries that we didn't have to worry about how much stress we put on it.

Since guns are never OT, as soon as they are sufficiently responsible to safely handle the gun. I was hunting solo at 10. I've had a close friend's buddy gut shot by a supervised 15 year old boy. I had a friend killed accidentally by his own twenty year old brother. In sum, when the youngster can keep safety top-of-mind, he's ready to learn.

And I must object a bit to the notion that "all of us are responsible." Because as Montesquieu pointed out--correctly , in my view--democracy is suitable only for a small country, and it must be a nation-state. For a mid-sized country, monarchy is suitable. For a REALLY BIG country (ours), only a totalitarian state (ultimately) is capable of keeping order and making things (kinda sorta) function. So, no, everybody is NOT responsible. Exactly how were ordinary people supposed to prevent the gov't from growing out of control and all the rest of it? There was never any practicable way. Never. Besides, there is almost certainly an epigenetic factor at work. Check out Dr Penman's "biohistory."

"but I’ve been roaming the house yelling “Sarah Smash” while cats, sons, even husband get out of my way."

Blah blah blah something something blah. Who says that what she writes in her little articles is true? What reason do we have to believe any of that "sons and husbands get out of [my] way" drivel? Is she not a known liar?

62. Cloudbuster December 04, 2018 2:39 PMDon't ever waste your time commenting on her blog, either. She has a whole crew of White Knights and sycophants ready to rush to her defense if you even appear to be criticizing her.

and how do you think i knew about her habits?

hell, back when this whole "born more American than American in Portugal" thing first broke, there was one of her MadGenius compatriots accusing me of "challenging" e e cummings.

on the basis that because i was aware that Cummings didn't capitalize his pen name either, that this constitutes "challenging" him.

how deranged is that?

of course, they accorded themselves as the "winners" of that exchange.

and these people are allowed to vote.

and are supposedly on "our side". it's no wonder Sad Puppies never accomplished much.

a - i have no doubt that she's exaggerating for effect. does anyone seriously think that she's running around her house exclaiming, "Sarah Smash" ... at her CATS? maybe as a joke.

b - that speaks rather to the way she casually shits on all the men in her family, in front of the whole world. even if she doesn't actually shit on them within the household, she CLAIMS that she does in public. and she thinks that's A-OK.

c - my point was that she IS bad. are citing her being a Liar as a contradiction to me? ;-]

"Divorce is always better than murdering your spouse, even when there might be a lot of wealth involved. Of course, there is always "a lot" of wealth involved, there is everything the family had built or accumulated over the years, however much that is."

All true. Thing is … who will get the community property known as "nuclear weapons?" "Space weapons" (if any)? And so forth. Sticky wicket. How likely is an amicable divorce given the necessity for such a property settlement?

Damelon Brinn wrote:So for now I'd say the blue state governments are more likely to try to win in 2020 with massive voter fraud and intimidation ...

It worked pretty well in 2018, with no real consequences for even the most blatant fraud. They'd be fools not to do even more of it in 2020.

This is probably the biggest disappointment of the Trump administration so far: he and Snoozin' Sessions had two years to set up oversight and consequences for fraud, and judging by results, they did nothing.

This is very true. My ancestors came over from Italy. They left their friends, family & the graves of their ancestors to come here to make more money. Although my 2 brothers, my son & I are on the right, the overwhelming majority of my extended family are either of the left or at best the fake right. The Sicilian family I unfortunately married into is mostly hard left. None of this was worth it. We should have stayed in our own country, built it up, fixed the problems there, instead of coming here for "better" jobs. Incidentally, 1 of the crazy excuses givin for flooding Italy with migrants is that the native Italian population is shrinking so needs to be supplemented with muh Africans. No sh*t your population is shrinking, 50 million of your people got outta' town. It was all for nothing.

@80: Agree 100%. Trump the Chump has been underwhelming in the area of dealing with vote fraud. To say nothing of dealing with the seditious conspiracy against the U.S. Government (the fact that he was the target is immaterial, the fact that elements within the FBI and DOJ worked to undermine the President is everything).

Mr Darcy wrote:... democracy is suitable only for a small country, and it must be a nation-state. ... For a REALLY BIG country (ours), only a totalitarian state (ultimately) is capable of keeping order and making things (kinda sorta) function.

I gather that ``small'' means a single nation, and ``REALLY BIG'' means multiple nations? If so, you're on the right track: it takes a totalitarian government to run an empire. It's not the size, though, it's the homogeneity that makes the difference.

The Hillbillies, Southrons and Yankees could probably partition North America and successfully rule their own portions without totalitarianism. Hillbillies, Yankees, Southrons, Squatemalans and Somalis all jumbled together will require a more totalitarian state than is currently available on this earth.

What is far more likely, I think, is that somebody--maybe even the FBI--shoots down some sort of leftists (Antifa, BLM, Pussy Hat crowd, whoever), then produces "evidence" that "it was perpetrated by white nationalists! This must be stopped! They must be rounded up!" Etc ETc You know the rest.

Odd. Anyway, the purpose of the war was to prevent Southern Independence.

No, he had it right. Read the speeches and editorials from the South in the prewar period. Northern industry was parasitizing the agricultural South, and that was the reason for secession. The reason for the war was to enable the parasite to keep its host - to prevent Southern independence.

The Southrons never got along with the Yankees back in England, and that never changed once they got over here. The War of Northern Aggression was Roundheads versus Cavaliers all over again.

Slavery was an emotional issue, well suited to stir up women and crazies, but it was never the issue that drove the serious men of either side.

Well said. This is a soapbox of mine. These European governments claim they need Arabs and Africans etc blah blah, but they at all times had the option of advertising in the US (and elsewhere that Italians or other Europeans had gone) for the descendants of those emigrants to "come home." In fact, the current Italian gov't is offering some pretty good incentives for people to settle in Calabria (and Sardinia I think). I'm sure about Calabria.

Agreed. But I was just paraphrasing Montesquieu, although his thesis makes perfect sense to me.

But my main point was that in a country the size of ours, there was never at any time (in the 20th cent.) a practicable way for ordinary citizens to stop the gov't from doing all the stuff it has done and continues to do. The country is just too big.

Let's imagine that many scores of thousands of people like us here rose up to put a stop--forcibly (since voting has never worked)--to Hart-Cellar, just to toss out one example. HOW would that have been accomplished? By voting? Well, we have the witness of history on that. By armed insurrection? By attacking … what? Whom? When? Where? By the time scores of thousands of determined, armed citizens could even hope to reach--where? DC? Wall Street? Where? By the time scores of thousands could converge on (wherever), they would have been long since detected. And stopped. Or their ultimate goal fortified sufficiently to obviate the realization of their goals, etc.

There was never at any time in the 20th century that there was a practicable means of stopping FedGov from doing all the stuff it has done and continues to do.

"Though I obviously have selfish motives for asking my question, I'm interested in the broader perspective of how foreign-raised people will be regarded when mass repatriations start happening around the world."

This being the internet and all, the comments are prone to extremes and exaggerations. Historically speaking, unless you think of yourself as not-American, nobody's going to care. There's not going to be some psycho hardliner "are you an American" test, except in the heads if nutjobs that nobody else is going to trust, anyways. Part of that is due to unique historical circumstances (exceptional geographic mobility in the USA), but mostly it's just going to be irrelevant. There will be gradients and local areas with high degrees of diversity because that's what happens. The fact that you spent several years overseas won't even register unless you flaunt it, anymore than my ~10% non-European ancestry isn't going to matter because nobody will notice or care unless I make some sort of issue out of it.

The idea that there'll be a "blood and soil"-style cleansing is a fantasy of a particular brand of crazy.

Many people personally favored one side or the other, but avoided all hostilities as best as they could, including turning a blind eye to the actions of BOTH sides, because they valued their lives more than anything else.

Mr Darcy wrote:Let's imagine that many scores of thousands of people like us here rose up to put a stop--forcibly (since voting has never worked)--to Hart-Cellar, just to toss out one example. HOW would that have been accomplished?

If dozens of Senators and hundreds of Reps had mysteriously been lynched the first time they went back to their districts after the Hart-Cellar vote, that might have accomplished something.

A congressional district is small enough to enforce personal accountability, if enough constituents care. Unfortunately, not enough cared enough to even vote the scum out of office.

@82: "Then how do you explain the war? It lasted for four years. Thousands would be killed every week, but both sides continued the war. Your post mystifies me. We have the witness of history."

The smarter generals, like Thomas, new the score from the outset. After Shiloh, popular illusions about quick victory should have been shredded on both sides.

Why did the people continue fighting? That's a challenging question to answer. But methinks the war offered the masses on both sides some self-forgetfulness that goes with the unshakable feeling that one has joined something--a moral cause--greater than oneself. And I think this was true for both sides, but for different moral reasons.

@1- Funny thing though, I never heard of "American exceptionalism" until after peoplepeople were denying or defending its existence. Either they should have done a better job conditioning us to believe in it, or they shouldn't have come up with such a weak, ad hoc justification for their useless foreign adventures.

Shouldn't be that hard to argue for reckless American empire. After WWII, the Bomb, and the Cold War, the American people were used to it. You wouldn't have to try hard, like a Teddy Roosevelt.

True enough, but the congress members who voted in favor represented people who thought the "reform" was just fine. Those who represented people who might have lynched their representatives voted no.

In any event, even the minorities in the districts whos reps voted yes could not have even conceivably gotten away with what you suggest. There was a powerful and functioning government that would have reacted decisively and viciously.

So I repeat that there was never any practicable way for the general population to prevent the stuff that FedGov did and continues to do.

It is simply not true that "all of us" are somehow responsible. The simple fact is that we were betrayed. And we continue to be betrayed.

"Divorce is always better than murdering your spouse, even when there might be a lot of wealth involved. Of course, there is always "a lot" of wealth involved, there is everything the family had built or accumulated over the years, however much that is."

All true. Thing is … who will get the community property known as "nuclear weapons?" "Space weapons" (if any)? And so forth. Sticky wicket. How likely is an amicable divorce given the necessity for such a property settlement?

A fair and reasonable question.

The divorce equivalent to nuclear weapons is when a woman (or man) marries into a very wealthy family. Perhaps the family are wealthy industrialists and there was no pre-nuptial agreement in place before the marriage. There is no way the family or the spouse is going to allow the divorcing party to walk off with a major portion of a going concern that took generations to build.

So the nuclear weapons solution would be to turn the weapons over to a trust, NORAD is the first that comes to mind in this regard....or a similar entity that can be trusted to defend North America just as aggressively. This would create a nuclear umbrella over all the partitioned parts of the former USA.

Another approach might be proportional. The South is about a third of the population of the USA, so they may want a third of all of the military/naval equipment and weapons, including the nukes....and assume a third of national debt as well. Remember too that Y12 and K25 are located in East Tennessee, deep in the bowels of the South. In the absence of open hostilities, all the former parts of the USA would very likely agree to another NATO-like format for continental defense.

In the last resort, with very little cooperation, it could be catch as catch can, and possession means a great deal in the end....along with copious amounts of cash, you can buy off most upstart claimants to the family empire in a divorce.

Thanks for your reply. Yes, it is a vexed question. But we have the witness of history--that is to say, the war DID go ahead despite the continually appalling losses--so I still don't grasp the other writer's idea that the belligerents would not have gone ahead with the war if they had known the results in advance.

Are you familiar with Dr Penman's "biohistory" thesis? I've been reading up on it (two books and his website and videos and You Tube interviews), and it's making a lot of sense. Look into it if you haven't already.

Mr Darcy wrote:In any event, even the minorities in the districts whos reps voted yes could not have even conceivably gotten away with what you suggest. There was a powerful and functioning government that would have reacted decisively and viciously.

You want to be able to act without risk or consequence? That's not happening, ever.

If that were possible, our congress critters would actually represent us, and problems would rarely arise.

"I always thought the purpose of the civil war was Northern business leaders wanted to break Southern plantation owners … ."

And given your own argument, that makes no sense whatsoever, since to "break" the Southern planter class would have obviated the very things you mention: parasitizing that very class, and so on. Had the parasites killed--broken--the host, there would have been an end to their revenues.

They never wanted to "break" the Southern planter class. They did want to parasitize them--you are quite right about that.

And yes, I've read the things you mention. I'm a long-standing member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Military Order of the Stars and Bars, the Sons of the American Revolution (in GA, SC, and France), and of the Jamestowne Society. I have lectured on Confederate history all over the South. I've published a book on colonial history that was nominated for two national awards (didn't win either one!), and am more than passing familiar with the ancient hatreds between "them" and "us." It goes back to King John's War in the 13th century, in fact, and was continued in the 17th century in England and in the 19th century here. And it's been percolating beneath the surface ever since, although "beneath the surface" seems no longer to be true, given the continuing destruction of all Southern monuments everywhere. They ae even desecrating Christian graves now, as I'm sure you know. These are Jacobins or what my grandparents would have called "godless Bolsheviks."

I always refer to the Old Testament history of King Asa when talking about the current mania for effacing Southern history. He, as you will recall, cut down the sacred grove where the queen's (his own mother) priests served their god, and had their altars destroyed. Eventually he had all the pagan priests slain (with swords, which must have been a gory affair). The point being that when a new religion comes along, it is imperative that ALL vestiges of the old religion AND THE CULTURE THAT WAS FOUNDED UPON IT be obliterated. That's what we are seeing now. The new religion must efface ALL vestiges of the culture founded upon Christianity.

I've decided not to spare you *everything* so I*'ll just add this: It's an exercise in futility, but I always explain to the unlettered that "slavery caused secession but it did NOT cause the War. The war was caused by Mr Lincoln's defiance of the Confederate government's *written* warnings NOT to try to send the Star of the West to relieve Ft Sumter." Two entirely different--although related--things. Slavery did cause secession--read the ordinances--but it was Lincoln who caused the war.

Very interesting and well-conceived. But con you even IMAGINE … !? It beggars the imagination. Well, mine, anyway.

Trusting somebody, as you suggest (NORAD), seems pretty iffy to me, if the trust is required during a time when blood is being spilled and emotions are--shall we say?--"running high." And so on. The "cash" idea is probably sound.

And, of course, the South's percentage of the general population would, I think, be a bit "problematic." (Dear God. Did I really use that word?) Because a growing (and already-too-large) percentage of the population of the South does not consist of Southerners.

My guess is that even if an amicable divorce could be managed, the division of community property would be … well … let's just say "messy."

"This question probably covers a very small number of people, but I'm curious nonetheless. How would people like me and my brother be regarded in terms of national identity? Born in the U.S. to American parents, raised from a very young age in another country, and then returned to the U.S. as adults. We've been called "third culture kids," and that's probably accurate. Legally, obviously, we're born Americans in the literal sense; but are we "born Americans" in the true spirit of the term?"

" … and while Northern industrial capacity was quite impressive, far outstripping the capacity of the South, they didn't actually export much."

THIS was The Thing. And it manifested itself in the form of the Morrill Tarif Act, as you know. The North wanted the South to pay the tariffs to finance FedGov AND to buy Northern manufactures.

So yes, money was a big part of it, but so were religion and culture. These two peoples had fought each other twice before on the other side of the pond. And I suspect we shall do so again within the next 15 yrs or so.

There's an anecdote about a conversation that took place between Lincoln and somebody-or-other who had said, "Let the erring sisters go!" To which Lincoln is said to have replied, "Where, then, shall we get our revenues?" If that didn't happen, it ought to have, for it sums up a big part of the whole conflict, though not all of it.

"We will have to do that to the Left, if we ever want to win and make it stick."

I'm afraid you're right. But what is the alternative? It's a real dilemma, in the literal sense of that word because all our choices are bad ones. But as somebody pointed out above, Churchill said that a people might have to fight even when there is no chance of victory because it is better to perish than to submit to subjugation. And "they" would subjugate us. It's Orwell's boot-on-the-face-forever thing.

No, we aren't disagreeing. But I'm enjoying our exchange! although I've got to get going shortly to Vespers (Advent and all that). Thanks for your replies!

It wasn't even that exotic (Canada). Aside from the occasional involuntary "eh," my American patriotism only wanes when it comes to hockey over football, and certain foods. Canadian chocolate is much better; french fries should be served with white vinegar; and mayo should be the default condiment for pretty much everything.

Around age 4 if possible. Start them off with slingshots, archery, and single pump BB guns. Insist that they follow some basic safety rules: pointing and shooting only in safe directions, not firing when others are downrange, proper trigger control, wearing eye protection, etc.

Depending on how well they follow your instructions you might have them move up to .22 rifles as young as 6 and small bore shotguns around 7-8. Personally I wouldn't let a child shoot a pistol of any kind until he has demonstrated that he can consistently handle a .22 rifle safely. When you start teaching them to shoot pistols, again start with .22 LR and move up to larger calibers as their proficiency increases.

Very interesting and well-conceived. But con you even IMAGINE … !? It beggars the imagination. Well, mine, anyway.

Trusting somebody, as you suggest (NORAD), seems pretty iffy to me, if the trust is required during a time when blood is being spilled and emotions are--shall we say?--"running high." And so on. The "cash" idea is probably sound.

And, of course, the South's percentage of the general population would, I think, be a bit "problematic." (Dear God. Did I really use that word?) Because a growing (and already-too-large) percentage of the population of the South does not consist of Southerners.

My guess is that even if an amicable divorce could be managed, the division of community property would be … well … let's just say "messy."

Thanks for your reply!

I am sorry. I thought we were talking about what might be possible. I did not know it also had to be effortless. There will be no easy way to partition fifty states into two or more separate countries, with or without a civil war. I not only believe it is possible but inevitable and we should consider paths that might get us to the end result with as little excitement as necessary. There is a normal and moral tendency on the part of very many people to take the path of least resistance and blood when these things happen. If a political solution is possible, by all means we need to consider it.

@98 DirkWell, back again after running the new water lines into the new structure. Had to try building a house from scratch. Already fully renovated one in the past. However...Don't know the actual number of Patriot boots on the ground, stuffing powder down barrels and pulling triggers, but will allow 5% until proven otherwise. I was referring to the figures of supporters not necessarily the troops. Those divisions were from discussions on this blog, as I recall.So, five percent. Larry Correia, on his blog recently, was talking about some small social event where some special forces operators and he were discussing what it would take to ruin Chicago. They, because all of them had been there at one time or another. Larry was shocked at their thought experiment, from their point of view, as trained guys who knew how to cause massive mayhem using just the five guys. He refused to spell out their ideas not wanting to give any others those same plans.So, yeah. A few percentile of motivated and possibly well trained fighters could give everyone a bad day. Will it happen? Vox thinks so. I hope not myself but, if its to be then we need to give Trump his two more years and then decide. I suppose. The left may decide for us sooner than that. If they, intelligently, gamed out the scenarios I suspect even those loonies would pause and rethink. I know, I know, expecting 'intelligence' from those life forms is asking a lot. But, you know, every now and then the odd miracle happens.

@110- True. But I'd go farther. I believe SCOTUS officially decided after the war that it began when Lincoln levied the 75,000 troops.

Because the Union could have fought to preserve federal property. Not just Sumter but all of it. However, that's not what the war was about. The war was about forcing the Confederacy back into the Union. And that was Lincoln's choice.

Tariff's were charged on Imports, not Exports. The South did most of the exporting, of cotton and other agricultural goods. The Northeast sent woolens.

Prior to the Morill tariff, rates were low and all, including the South, were fine with it, except for some northern iron and wool interests. They wanted protection to build their markets and capacity.

How did the Tariff make the South pay all the bills?

If the tariff made imports too costly for the Southern peoples, just buy domestic manufactures, problem solved.

The tariffs were a contributing factor, but to argue they were the over riding cause seems a little bit of a (Warp 9!) leap.

Children and guns: we just got back from cutting part of a fairly good sized Virginia Pine tree into firewood . . .with a crosscut saw. The first priority is of course because we need heat. Second, is that the boys need to be capable of sustained hard labor, hours at a time. And I'm not acting as supervisor. Third, and this is important, it makes any chainsaw, an old one, an electric one, any with a sharp chain, look amazing. So with guns, they start with black powder. Then 22 LR bolt action. Finally, they can use a 22 LR semi auto. Man, do they marvel at that. As far as CW goes, man, so many things to consider. Here's three: You know that president Trump's victory wasn't just defeat for the left, right? It was -bitter- defeat, because they were at the cusp of having it all. Hill bitch would have enacted hate speech laws by EO within a few weeks of ascension. Then they would have gone retro; man those comments you've been making for the last 10 years, tsk, tsk. A mutually agreed breakup with those who hate you to that degree is an interesting thought. It seems that they would need some grievous threat in order to negotiate.Personally, I think we need to covenant with Christ to have victory. No more Darwin for kids, no more abortion, LGBT, or lewd TV. As Matthew Henry said, He does not stay where He is not welcome. Third, the left likely has reaction plans for a CW, maybe even initiation plans, but what does the right have? I'm not fishing for info, but had the South a different plan, as in take WDC when they could have, how would that have affected the outcome? I understand that in the Third Reich, dissension was inadvisable. Could alter your life expectancy, or have you packing warm clothes. So they had fictional conversations, they pitted famous historical characters against each other as a covert way of expressing the follies of German leadership. So is it possible to have fictional games where strategic and tactical military and infrastructure actions are played out to contemplate the consequences? One could even get elaborate, and make it a computer simulation, if it hasn't already been done. It has been done for a different purpose, and recorded in a book titled "The Logic of Failure". Do_not_ask why I bought the book. Yeah, so anyway, they were making a point about unintended exponential consequences. They include actual case scenarios of disaster, to further prove the point; Chernobyl meltdown being one. The computer simulation allowed participants to be ruler of a fictional area in Africa, or Europe. Drill more wells, hire more police, it's all up to you, but the computer ran long calculations based on those decisions. You see, I think if/when fighting breaks out, 'they' might move swiftly. Let us not be caught off guard.

@59 - You are best where you find yourself, and then need to assimilate as much as possible. I don't know about the Brazilian "Japanese", but the first part is if you can pass - behavior but including language and manners. When you waddle, quack, etc. like a duck, your swan like appearance will be the anomaly. Usually it is the reverse.

"I'm waiting for someone on the Right to try hunting Antifa over bait...arrange for a conservative speaker to do something near, but not on, a college campus infested with Leftists. Wait for the attempted violence. Then deliver the Great Big Surprise of several dozen trained, armed men delivering deadly force."

All it takes is one man, with a rifle.

Preferably with hand loads at a subsonic muzzle velocity and a decent sound suppressor.

Safety On/Safety off.Loaded/Unloaded.Round in the chamber or not?Muzzle Awareness.How to clear a weapon (remove/empty source of ammunition, THEN remove the ammo from the chamber -- [if you get that backwards, removing one piece of ammo will just replace it with another])Even if you think a weapon is empty, treat it as if it's loaded.Even if you KNOW a weapon is empty, treat it as if it's loaded.

BB's don't fly all that straight, but they don't do much damage, either.

Then graduate to pellets.

The best part is -- you can do all of this in the basement (as long as I can remember, my uncle has had a small trap in the basement for bb's & pellets. Both for his own use, and for training his sons and nephews. He's an NRA High Master in high power rifle.

Then to .22LRHow to disassemble, clean, and reassemble the weapon.How does the weapon operate? (every phase from stripping a round out of a magazine or clip, loading it into the magazine, locking the bolt into the breech, trigger sear releasing the hammer, firing pin hitting the primer, bullet leaving the casing and entering the barrel, bullet leaving the barrel, bullet trajectory, bullet impact, bolt unlocking from the breach, ejection of brass)

Any act of mishandling with the .22LR, you take them back to the air rifle. This shows that you're SERIOUS about proper handling, muzzle awareness, etc. and that they only get to do the fun stuff (handle things that go bang) if they FOLLOW THE RULES.

The .22LR is good for building the habit of always keeping BOTH eyes open, not just the dominant eye looking down the sights, and to eliminate any flinching or trigger jerk.

Get that "muscle memory" done well.

After a couple years of handling a .22LR properly, graduate to a 5.56mm platform.

Peter wrote:5%.. it took 1 black man and his kid assistant with an old car and hole in the trunk to shutdown the whole east coast. But once they notice you, the 5% will be wliminated quickly.Two numbskulls tied up police in several states, and were spotted only by accident. Dorner was one, less competent numbskull, and he had every cop in California in a blind, pants-fouling panic for a week.

Imagine if 0.5% of the population were doing that kind of thing, and 4.5% were willing to wink at it. That's 1.5 million shooters instead of two. Do you really think the police will be able to eliminate anything, let alone quickly? More likely that the police will be eliminated quickly. Now imagine that a few hundred of those 0.5% were not numbskulls, and are actually effective, and are targeting the ruling class instead of cops. The ruling class would quickly be decimated.

Dirk Manly wrote:Preferably with hand loads at a subsonic muzzle velocity and a decent sound suppressor.

Dirk, subsonic .22 in a long barrel hardly needs a suppressor, and can be ridiculously accurate. If you are on a mission like the current hypothetical one, any improvised suppressor would be adequate.

Now the Fake Americans are more or less ruling over the people they invaded

That's because to real Americans, government is some little part time thing for gentlemen to engage in and the only permanent jobs are for finding your slightly retarded cousin paying work filling potholes. Fake Americans think it's the way to steal everyone else's stuff.

Those Brazilian Japanese thought they were Japanese. Mindset clearly isn't sufficient, either.

Stickwick, stop.

You missed the entire point of Ominous Cowherd's comment. If you think you're an American, you might be, but you might also not be. He said very clearly Sarah Hoyt is an example of someone who thinks she's an American but isn't.

But if you don't think you're an American, or think you're some hyphenated not-fully-American, then you are definitely not an American, regardless of where you grew up.

Thinking you are an American is a necessary but not sufficient qualification.

Regarding the not-so-recent unpleasantness between the states. We can argue this, that or the other thing, but ultimately the real cause of the Civil War was there were two cultures sharing a border who were similar enough to get along as equals, but not similar enough for one to peacefully submit to the other.

So for four score and seven years, more or less, the statesmen among them tried to keep the balance that made them equals. But - and here's where you can definitively say slavery was the cause of the war - because of the South's addiction to slave-holding, the North was steadily outpacing the South in population, economy and culture. The North was becoming more powerful. The South responded with the only lever it still had - oh, sweet irony - the Federal Government. The South was able to dominate Congress and the Supreme Court in the antebellum years. But this was just pouring gasoline onto the smoldering coals, because Northerners looked at that as Southrons trying to impose their will through the Federal Government, and fought back.

When Lincoln was elected, the South knew it has lost the only remaining balance of power it had - save perhaps military power. So the shooting was was on.

141. Jack Amok December 04, 2018 10:58 PMThe South was able to dominate Congress and the Supreme Court in the antebellum years. But this was just pouring gasoline onto the smoldering coals, because Northerners looked at that as Southrons trying to impose their will through the Federal Government, and fought back.

this bullshit lie again.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3"No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."

EVERY Northern state ratified this Constitutional Clause.

and proceeded to attempt to unilaterally abrogate their SWORN OATH continuously, for four score and seven years.

those Fugitive Slave Laws which the North found so "offensive"? would have been completely unnecessary had the North simply ABIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION, TO WHICH THEY HAD SWORN.

and Northerners have the unmitigated gall to accuse the South of being the instigators ...

"Third, the left likely has reaction plans for a CW, maybe even initiation plans, but what does the right have? I'm not fishing for info, but had the South a different plan, as in take WDC when they could have, how would that have affected the outcome? I understand that in the Third Reich, dissension was inadvisable. Could alter your life expectancy, or have you packing warm clothes. So they had fictional conversations, they pitted famous historical characters against each other as a covert way of expressing the follies of German leadership. So is it possible to have fictional games where strategic and tactical military and infrastructure actions are played out to contemplate the consequences? One could even get elaborate, and make it a computer simulation, if it hasn't already been done.It has been done for a different purpose, and recorded in a book titled "The Logic of Failure". Do_not_ask why I bought the book. Yeah, so anyway, they were making a point about unintended exponential consequences. They include actual case scenarios of disaster, to further prove the point; Chernobyl meltdown being one. The computer simulation allowed participants to be ruler of a fictional area in Africa, or Europe. Drill more wells, hire more police, it's all up to you, but the computer ran long calculations based on those decisions.You see, I think if/when fighting breaks out, 'they' might move swiftly. Let us not be caught off guard."

I've been thinking of developing a war game for a potential civil war along the demographic lines that we currently see. But I've been just sitting on it because I'm not sure what the interest level is. So, you seem interested. But also, I think you might be interested in helping to design such a thing.

I'm thinking traditional hexagonal map (area-movement I think is right out -- for one, it doesn't portray thinning out of forces when trying to secure a large area.. when you consider concepts of infiltration, etc.)

Are you interested in working on helping develop such a thing?

I'm also thinking a dual-scale system (similar to the idea used in Victory Games' Iran-Iraq game, "Desert Strike" -- which later had a Desert Storm expansion). Ground forces tend to get bunched-up in urban terrain. So, the main map can have the whole of CONUS, but when both sides are maneuvering in/around metropolitan areas, the action shifts to a higher-scale map.

The hard part that I see is going to be that of modelling the irregular warfare component. I'm going to have to take another look at VG's Central America, and Vietnam 1965-75, as both of those products focus on irregular warfare.

Bob, put your southern parts back in your pants long enough to think. It wasn't any one thing or act. It was a balance of power that the South was losing everywhere but the Federal Government. I'm not even blaming them, it was perfectly predictable that they'd try to hold onto whatever they could to avoid Yankee dominance. When they lost that, they threw the iron dice. The South didn't trust the North not to try to take over. Their attempt to hold onto enough power to avoid that convinced the North they couldn't trust the South either. The growing imbalance of non-governmental power forced the South to accept either subjugation or war.

We face the same basic dilemma today, only it's the growing imbalance of voting power that threatens Heritage America. We used to be able to get along with liberals when power was more or less equal. They'd do wacky things, we'd shake our heads, and everyone would find some sort of compromise.

Then immigration and hysterical suffrage started moving the needle.

As to my own allegiances, I'm a Westerner. My people got the hell away from both your crazy ass sides by the 1840's.

the North swore to abide by a Law and then spent 70 years violating it.

had the South known that the North was going to unilaterally abrogate the Constitutional agreement, there is NO WAY IN HELL ANY OF THOSE STATES WOULD HAVE RATIFIED. thus, the Southern states would have never been a part of the Union and would never have had a need to Secede from it.

the North made a binding contract under false pretenses.

and then accused the South of being "at fault" when they had the temerity to actually attempt to hold the North to account for their deceit.

there are perfectly Lawful ways to modify and amend the Constitution. there was even a prior example of a perfectly Lawful and just way to dispose of slavery ... which the British had demonstrated some 40 years earlier.

the North had no intention of wasting time Lawfully amending the Constitution because they never abided by the Constitution in the first place.

if Northerners will not admit their own crimes with regard to the Civil War and their decades long violation of Constitutional Law, then there should never be any expectation that they will EVER feel themselves constrained by ANY Law.

Besides, if you're gonna lawyer, note the specifics: the clause doesn't require any state to help. It just prevents them from interfering. The Fugitive Slave Acts were, in fact, necessary for what the South wanted (and probably unconstitutional).

Lost causers are almost as predictable as Boomers when it comes to recognizing their own culpability.

You know we're all flawed creatures, right? Politics is a crap-ass game that attracts the worst elements of any culture, and whenever someone with a shred of integrity makes it into office it's near evidence of a miracle. Someone above said it was Roundheads vs Cavaliers Round 2, and that's probably close enough to being right. As soon as the two groups - who'd fought a real civil war in England, contesting the same districts - established separate states in the New World, the end result was probably damn near unavoidable.

Sarah is not a bad person. And one cannot reasonably fault people acting at the micro level for the macrosocietal consequences.

No snowflake accepts blame for the ensuing avalanche.

That's why our Founding Fathers tried to develop systems to prevent individual behavior from changing the course of governance. Unfortunately, those systems have been subverted, starting with the invented role of the Supreme Court as unelected referee.

There's a book you might be interested in on the possibility of a peaceful separation. Came out--what?--2 or 3 yrs ago, I think. Easy read (no sacrifices required!). Author suggests partition by county, where everybody retains ownership of all property; ingress/egress free and easy; main restriction would be voting:

Well, this is annoying. I was going to give you a link to the book, but my mind has gone blank. Anyway, the above is the gist of the thing. The author posits that a peaceful separation is indeed possible, although he doesn't take up the nukes thing. He just emphasizes that nobody would lose any property in "the other" America; they just wouldn't be able to vote there. So his focus is on personal property, not gov't property.

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that. I can't say what the original writer might have meant, but as you can see, I took it to mean "bankrupt," which, of course, is precisely what they did by force of arms. And we can go on at length, spinning out the possibilities, the "might-have-beens," but had the Yankee Money Power been intent on breaking-like-a-horse the Southern planter class so as to retain FedGov's revenue stream from the planters' pockets, they would surely have used their money power to prevent Lincoln from waging war and destroying the South's economy utterly, thereby forfeiting the revenues they ostensibly went to war to retain. So I still think the original writer meant "bankrupt" or "overthrow" or something along those lines, but your point is certainly valid.

On the other hand, I sometimes wonder whether wars isn't a phenomenon akin to natural disasters, such as earthquakes or huricanes--that is to say, just "something that happens" from time to time. A human activity as commonplace as any other. And a popular one, come to that. People do love war, regardless of what they claim to the contrary. Thanks for your reply.

Good points. And, you know, the Yankee Empire could have chosen diplomatic (or other) negotiations to reclaim Federal property, although it's hard--very hard--to imagine that a sovereign gov't would have been willing to return Federal arsenals and such to Lincoln, thereby giving him installations within Confederate territory. But negotiations were never even tried, at least not seriously. And of course SCOTUS did tell the Radical Republicans after the war that they could not try Jeff Davis for treason b/c the South had been within her rights (in accordance with the several Southern states' ratification of the Constitution in the 8th cent.) to secede. That's when they released Davis from the Old Capital Prison, where they had been holding him. (This wasn't a "decision" b/c there was no "case," but they gave it as their considered opinion.)

Well said, although I think I understood Amok's summary a bit differently from the way you did. My take was just that he was saying that, in a nutshell, the two sections--nations, really--simply could not live under one central govt in the end. Still, what you have said is absolutely true, esp, the part about the gall of people who insist that the South was somehow responsible for the war, but that happens when you lose a disastrous war. Anyway, I don't think there's an *real* disagreement here.

I am most definitely interested in your idea. And btw, do you remember the bookshelf board games "Diplomacy" and "Origins of WW2"?

The Prince von Bismarck once said that he didn't like war because "you can't control it."

And in your calculations, BE SURE to take into consideration the effects of the current (started 2015) Grand Solar Minimum and the concomitant global cooling, catastrophic crop failures and food shortages, mass population migrations, financial collapse, etc.

@105 "who represented people who might have lynched their representatives voted"

All this lynching AFTER the vote?! To what end? Do you believe that would have somehow invalidated the new law? Lovely revenge, MIGHT have had a future effect on some OTHER destructive law... but the damage was already done.

Funny you should mention that. Several years ago, I told somebody that the US would not allow France;s (and Britain's) nukes to fall into the hands of a French Islamic state, but nowadays I'm beginning to think as you just suggested. Madness prevails.

Gawd. Ain't it de trut'! Witness the recent gubernatorial election fiasco. And at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll point out how "those people" come here and immediately start telling us how they did it back in New Jersey or Minnesota or wherever. And then get "offended" at this or that monument or marker. And all the rest of it. And to continue beating the poor ol' dead horse, I'll repeat the maxim that "You can't fix stupid." But stupid can--and unhappily does--move to a better climate--en masse!

@136 "Then deliver the Great Big Surprise of several dozen trained, armed men delivering deadly force."All it takes is one man, with a rifle."

Aw hell, start with paintball 'rifles' and let rioters KNOW that they can be easily targeted! I'd always hoped some/one of our guys would plan for antifa/BLM riots and arrange/find a safe; unmonitored if possible, 'blinded, if not,' easy-to-escape hideout. Then, take out 4-5 of the worst rioters and clear out before being located.

I also, spurred by Matt Bracken's good trilogy, wished to see legislators, judges, and 'rulers' made cognizant of their own unnoticed jeopardy via paintballs. Bracken has a legislator who sponsored and pushed the 'confiscate their guns' law actually murdered on her back deck, from across a river in her back yard. Very ... rewarding evocation of emotions!

The book you are thinking of is called "Restoring America" by Dr. Michael Hart. Hart is a physicist by training I believe, and the book is a very thought provoking initial process essay. Has some very interesting facts about the various states at the COUNTY level and how citizens in them may react to partition. It's worth a look, if nothing else but a mental exercise.

"And I find myself paraphrasing Malvolio, “Peace? I hate the very word. As I hate hell, all fraudsters, and Leftists.”"

That's a paraphrase of a quote the character Tybalt from Romeo and Juliet, a play which also has a character named Benvolio. Malvolio is a character from the Twelfth Night. Maybe quote Portuguese literature next time.

157. Mr Darcy December 05, 2018 11:26 AMMy take was just that he was saying that, in a nutshell, the two sections--nations, really--simply could not live under one central govt in the end.

that's because you're both assuming as a Given that they should have ever been under the same central government in the first place.

IF the North not LIED about being willing to abide by the ConstitutionANDhad the South not been foolish enough to be deceived by their lies, thus ratifying the Constitution themselvesTHENthey would never have been under the same central government in the first place and Secession would have never even been a question.

this is not to say that they would have never fought a war with each other ( since the US has fought wars with Canada, Mexico and Spanish Cuba ), but it wouldn't have been the Civil War with a half million dead.

149. Jack Amok December 05, 2018 2:05 AMLost causers are almost as predictable as Boomers when it comes to recognizing their own culpability.

i am neither a Lost Causer nor pro-slavery.

in fact, i suspect that had the South never joined in Union with the North that slavery would have ended much sooner. because the Northern border of the Slave States would have been a much worse sieve than it already was with no Fugitive Slave Clause to even be enforced.

it does amuse me that you continue to excuse the radical progressive genocide of Lincoln as "justified" though.

funny how Wilberforce managed to eliminate slavery throughout the entire British empire Lawfully and without a war long before Lincoln was elected.

"I am most definitely interested in your idea. And btw, do you remember the bookshelf board games "Diplomacy" and "Origins of WW2"? "

I have played both.

Origins of WW2 is rather tame compared to Diplomacy.

I'm thinking main map somewhere in the 2 foot x 6 foot size. Population Control being one issue -- but unlike say, in VG's Vietnam, population is NOT a static number. Basically, I think the "non-combatants" need to be modelled, because ultimately, control of the government is going to come down to votes. If one side takes huge losses in their non-combatant numbers, then they've all but lost.

Locations of all National Guard Armories and Reserve Centers that are home to units of company size or larger. Probably not as difficult as you would think. At one time, there was practically one NG Armory per county, , and larger cities would have multiple, with each one home to an entire battalion. They are far fewer in number now.

All "Camps", "Forts", "Bases" and other facilities which have barracks and/or ammunition storage (if it has weapons ranges, it has ammunition appropriate for those ranges. Example: Camp Perry has small arms ranges. Therefore, the Camp Perry Ammo Supply Point has small arms ammo.Grayling, MI has small arms, tank, indirect fire, and aerial gunnery ranges, therefore, the Grayling ASP supports all of these except for ammo used by USAF/ANG fixed-wing aircraft, as Grayling has only an airfield suitable only for helicoptors and small, light aircraft which can take off and land on a small, 4000 foot runway.

Modelling police forces will be difficult. Cops tend to have an authoritarian streak a mile wide, even while they tend to be sympathetic to the politics of those who just want to be left alone.

National Guard, Marine Reserves -- "2nd line" or "3rd line" quality for combat, but 1st-line quality in population control.

US Navy Regulars -- probably not much of a factor other than "self defense"US Navy Reserves -- 3rd line for combat, 2nd line for population controlUSAF ground personnel -- 4th line quality for anything ground relatedAF National Guard -- Same as US Navy Reserves.

State Militia -- start out "green" (state does NOT pay them for training, or even to go through Basic Training. Those who are not prior service are... as much a danger to themselves and their comrades as to the enemy). They only get paid when activated. Training is on their own dime, and they have to buy their own uniforms.

Civil Air Patrol. A really odd bunch. Unpaid unless activated. Have to buy own uniforms. Have federal commissary privileges. Extremely young commissioned officers -- I once ran into one who was 12. He was probably proficient at supervising the NCOs running an airport tower -- assigning duties, filling out regulatory paperwork, etc. Probably from a well-off family, because he had to go to various officer training schools AT PERSONAL EXPENSE. I once ran into a CAP Captain who was 12! Yes, I saluted him.

"I'd always hoped some/one of our guys would plan for antifa/BLM riots and arrange/find a safe; unmonitored if possible, 'blinded, if not,' easy-to-escape hideout. Then, take out 4-5 of the worst rioters and clear out before being located. "

@91. bob kuk mando ( everything has Consequences. that what makes them Consequences ) December 04, 2018 3:43 PM@86. Mr Darcy December 04, 2018 3:31 PMOdd. Anyway, the purpose of the war was to prevent Southern Independence.

and while Northern industrial capacity was quite impressive, far outstripping the capacity of the South, they didn't actually export much.

I did not know all that. For a long but fascinating story of some reasons for North vs. South differences try the book below. It explained regional differences to this day. Link: http://a.co/d/82P09uqAlbion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America

@144 I'm honored, but there are several setbacks here:First, me trying to help with that project is probably like getting "Liver Eating Johnson" to help tune a Ferrari, or Lear jet. See guy at link:https://www.damninteresting.com/liver-eating-johnson/Even when I do remember to comb my hair in the morning, I bear a strong resemblance to him. Second, I'm covered up for 6 months or a year on volunteer projects.Lastly, I would rather be involved in something more fictional.But again, I'm honored, you're talking to a guy that has one foot in 1870, and one in 2018.

I have been reading VD for some time now. I have been watching some Timeline World History videos on Youtube. Two things jumped out at me recently.

1. The Dems in the US are now the party of the rich and the welfare dependent poor. This reminds me of later Rome, The rich and the bread and circuses.

2. The second video on Carthage said that Rome tried to instill the concept of being Roman into even the remote small towns e.g. public baths, arenas, propaganda. The video said Carthage failed to do even that. It was all commerce, private lives, and few public spaces.

e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6kI9sCEDvY

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.